ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026
Open Science in Undergraduate Medical Education: An International Framework for Transparency, Responsibility, and Professional Identity Formation.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Concerns about reproducibility, transparency, and research waste have intensified debates about trust in medical research and health-related sciences. Although Open science initiatives aim to address these challenges, their role in undergraduate medical education remains underexplored. Undergraduate medical education typically emphasizes appraisal of published evidence but pays less attention to how research is conducted, governed, and disseminated. This article proposes an international conceptual framework that positions Open science as part of professional formation in undergraduate medical education. The framework comprises three domains: epistemic transparency, ethical responsibility, and professional identity formation. Together, they describe how learners engage with knowledge production, uncertainty, and responsibility. Rather than prescribing curricular models, the framework offers adaptable principles that can be mapped onto existing structures such as competency-based programs in diverse contexts. By framing Open science as a formative orientation rather than a technical skill set, it links medical education to professional responsibility and the public role of medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.